Podcasts about plaintiffs

VLOG July 16 Sean Combs plaintiff gives name: https://www.patreon.com/posts/diddy-dockets-by-134219761 US v. Roman Storm, victim Lin on stand https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-in-roman-storm-openings-us GENIUS Act. Gun trial; Nadine Menendez 9/11; US waste in Sudan scoop: https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate3unisfaicp071525.html Waltz litmus test: end UN censorship

This Day in Legal History: Residence ActOn July 16, 1790, the U.S. Congress passed the Residence Act, establishing the District of Columbia as the permanent seat of the federal government. The decision was the product of a political compromise between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, brokered in part by James Madison, whereby southern states would support federal assumption of state debts in exchange for locating the capital along the Potomac River. The land for the new district was ceded by both Maryland and Virginia, and the Constitution allowed for a federal district not exceeding ten miles square. President George Washington personally selected the site, which straddled the Potomac and included portions of Alexandria and Georgetown.Pierre Charles L'Enfant was tasked with designing the city's layout, envisioning broad avenues and grand public spaces to reflect the dignity of the new republic. In the early years, however, Washington, D.C. remained underdeveloped and muddy, with many of the federal buildings still under construction. Over time, most major institutions and monuments were built on the Maryland side of the river, causing concern among residents on the Virginia side. In 1846, responding to economic neglect and the declining significance of Alexandria as a port, Congress approved Virginia's request to retrocede its portion of the district. This land, now Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria, rejoined Virginia, reducing the size of D.C. to its current boundaries.The Residence Act and subsequent development of Washington, D.C. created a unique legal and political entity—neither a state nor part of one. This status continues to affect the rights and representation of its residents, a legal debate that remains active today.An $8 billion shareholder lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders began this week in Delaware's Chancery Court, focusing on alleged failures to uphold Facebook's 2012 privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Reed Hastings, and others knowingly allowed Facebook user data to be harvested—specifically in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that surfaced in 2018. That breach led to a record $5 billion FTC fine, which shareholders now want the defendants to personally reimburse, along with additional legal costs.The trial, presided over by Chief Judge Kathaleen McCormick, will feature testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients, who served on Meta's board from 2018 to 2020. Plaintiffs claim Zuckerberg profited by selling Facebook stock before the public learned of the data misuse, allegedly netting over $1 billion. Defendants deny all wrongdoing, maintaining they relied on compliance experts and were misled by Cambridge Analytica.This is the first oversight liability case of its kind to reach trial, a notoriously difficult claim under Delaware corporate law. Meta itself is not named as a defendant, and the company has declined to comment, though it has previously stated it has invested heavily in privacy protections since 2019.Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg | ReutersKilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant wrongly deported from the U.S. despite legal protections, is scheduled to appear in a Tennessee federal court on smuggling charges, though the future of his case remains murky. Abrego had been living legally in Maryland with a work permit and was protected by a 2019 court order barring deportation to El Salvador due to threats of gang violence. Nonetheless, he was deported in March and imprisoned there before being returned to the U.S. after federal prosecutors indicted him for allegedly participating in a human smuggling operation.He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers claim the charges are politically motivated—a cover for the Trump administration's mishandling of his case. They also challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses, who are alleged co-conspirators seeking to avoid their own deportation or charges. A magistrate judge ordered Abrego released on bail, but prosecutors are appealing, arguing he poses a flight risk and should remain detained. Even if released from criminal custody, immigration officials have said they plan to detain him immediately for possible deportation.Judge Waverly Crenshaw is expected to hear arguments and potentially rule on his bail status. Abrego's attorneys have asked to delay any release until Wednesday to prevent sudden removal before he can challenge deportation. The administration has signaled it may try to deport him to a third country—possibly Mexico or South Sudan—instead of El Salvador. His case has become emblematic of broader concerns over due process in the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Returned deportee Abrego due in Tennessee court; future of smuggling case uncertain | ReutersMilbank, a prominent New York-based law firm, is representing the cities of Newark and Hoboken in a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump's administration over their immigration policies. The federal suit, filed in May, accuses the cities of obstructing immigration enforcement by acting as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Milbank's defense team includes notable figures like former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal and ex-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, now both partners at the firm.Milbank's involvement in the case comes just months after it agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by executive orders aimed at major law firms. Trump had accused those firms of politicizing legal work and using racial diversity initiatives improperly. In response, several firms—including Milbank—committed to providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to mutually agreed-upon causes. Milbank set aside $100 million as part of its agreement, though it was not formally sanctioned.Despite that arrangement, Milbank has taken on multiple high-profile cases opposing the Trump administration. In addition to defending Newark and Hoboken, Katyal is leading two other cases challenging Trump policies, including import tariffs and alleged wrongful termination of a federal board member. The firm's role in these cases highlights its continued legal pushback against the administration, even while navigating its negotiated settlement with the White House.Law firm Milbank defends NJ cities in Trump immigration lawsuit | ReutersA piece I wrote for Inside Higher Ed this week argues that tax policy deserves a central place in the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum—not as a technical specialty but as a cornerstone of civic education. I open by reflecting on the tax legislation passed under President Trump, that is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, noting how its complexity served political ends by shielding its full implications from public understanding. That opacity, I suggest, is not accidental—and it's exactly why we need to teach tax more broadly.In my course at Drexel University, “Introduction to Tax Theory and Policy,” I approach tax not as accounting or law but as a form of civic infrastructure. The course welcomes students from all majors, encouraging them to think about taxation in terms of fairness, power, and values. We explore how tax policy shapes economic behavior, redistributes resources, and reflects assumptions about what and whom government should support. Students analyze topics ranging from estate taxes to digital surveillance and propose their own reforms grounded in ethical and civic reasoning.By demystifying the tax code and framing it as a site of public decision-making, I aim to empower students to see themselves not just as subjects of tax policy but as potential shapers of it. Their engagement—often surprisingly enthusiastic—reveals a hunger for this kind of critical, values-based education. Ultimately, I argue that tax belongs in the liberal arts because it teaches students not just how the world works, but how it's been made to work—and how it could be remade more equitably.Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What does it take to find the real truth in a high-stakes injury case?In this episode of The Effective Lawyer Podcast, Jack Zinda and Partner Cole Gumm walk through their real-life trial strategies—from confronting corporate negligence to handling disfiguring dog bites and trucking cases involving drug use. They share how expert witnesses, tactical depositions, and deep client trust can uncover the liability others miss.Topics Covered:    Tactics for uncovering apartment complex liability in a dog bite case    The power of expert witnesses in trucking and pediatric burn injuries    How to prepare for trial 90+ days out    Tips for mentoring new attorneys and building client trust    Mental health and work-life balance as a litigatorListen to learn how small details can lead to big wins.Have a question for Jack? Don't hesitate to reach out!jz@zindalaw.comhttps://www.zdfirm.com/

On today's program, Baylor University voluntarily rescinded their acceptance of an LGBTQ research grant after receiving pushback. The school's president says their stance on biblical sexuality has not changed. We'll have details. And, is a membership with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability worth the cost? We talked with current and former members. Also, the adoption of A-I in church operations is now mainstream…but pastors aren't ready to use it for everything. Plus, a guide to giving to ministries helping with relief efforts in central Texas after floods devastated the area. First, a former member is suing John MacArthur's megachurch for how it handled church discipline. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. We get database and other technical support from Stephen DuBarry, Rod Pitzer, and Casey Sudduth. Writers who contributed to today's program include Bob Smietana, Kim Roberts, Tony Mator, Jim Vertigo, John Seewer, Jessica Eturralde, and Christina Darnell. Until next time, may God bless you.   MANUSCRIPT:    FIRST SEGMENT Warren:                                                        Hello everybody. I'm Warren Smith, coming to you from Charlotte, North Carolina. Natasha: And I'm Natasha Cowden, coming to you from Denver, Colorado, and we'd like to welcome you to the MinistryWatch podcast. Warren: On today's program, Baylor University voluntarily rescinded their acceptance of an LGBTQ research grant after receiving pushback. The school's president says their stance on biblical sexuality has not changed. We'll have details. And, is a membership with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability worth the cost? We talked with current and former members. Also, the adoption of A-I in church operations is now mainstream…but pastors aren't ready to use it for everything. Plus, a guide to giving to ministries helping with relief efforts in central Texas after floods devastated the area. Natasha: But first, a former member is suing John MacArthur's megachurch for how it handled church discipline. Warren: In a complaint filed Thursday (July 3) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, lawyers for Lorraine Zielinski said she went to leaders at the megachurch in LA's Sun Valley neighborhood, where MacArthur is the longtime pastor, seeking counseling for her troubled marriage and was told her conversations would be kept confidential. According to the complaint, she told counselors she was afraid for her safety and the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. Her lawyers said church leaders pressured Zielinski to drop her request for a legal separation. When Zielinski tried to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel, according to the complaint. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors or details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation. Natasha: What happened? Warren: According to the complaint. “When Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, GCC made good on its threat and shared information gained through confidential communications relating to her marriage with GCC membership,” “GCC also misrepresented parts of these communications, painting Plaintiff as a bad actor in the marriage and the party at fault for the marital dispute. GCC also omitted Plaintiff's husband's desire to remarry and dissolve the marriage.” Natasha: Church members were also allegedly asked to pressure Zielenski to submit to church leaders and to reconcile with her husband, according to the complaint. Warren: Lawyers for Zielenski said the church violated her right to privacy and her right to free association, disclosed private facts, painted her in a false light, breached confidentiality and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Grace Community Church did not reply to a request for co...

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.com

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 229 features Marc Brown, Founder & Managing Attorney at the Marc Brown Law Firm, serving personal injury and wrongful death victims across South Carolina and Georgia. With a unique perspective shaped by years representing major insurance companies and corporations, Marc now fights for the individuals on the other side of the courtroom — the injured and their families. Since launching his firm in 2019, Marc has brought big-firm experience and dedication to a boutique, client-focused practice. Tune in to hear how Marc's journey from defending powerful entities to championing justice for the underserved has shaped his mission, mindset, and message. This is the story of a lawyer who knows both sides — and chooses to stand with the people.

This Day in Legal History: Newlands ResolutionOn July 7, 1898, President William McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution, formally annexing the Hawaiian Islands into the United States. Unlike traditional territorial expansion through treaties, this annexation occurred via a joint resolution of Congress—an unusual and legally contested mechanism. The resolution was named after Representative Francis Newlands of Nevada and passed by a narrow margin, reflecting deep divisions over imperialism, expansion, and national identity. Supporters argued that annexing Hawaii would bolster American strategic and economic interests, particularly as the U.S. was engaged in the Spanish-American War and needed a naval base in the Pacific.The legality of annexation by joint resolution, as opposed to treaty ratification requiring a two-thirds Senate majority, sparked constitutional debate. Critics contended that this method sidestepped constitutional checks and amounted to imperial overreach. Native Hawaiians had overwhelmingly opposed annexation, as demonstrated in the Kūʻē Petitions signed by over 20,000 islanders. The resolution disregarded this opposition, cementing a colonial dynamic that would echo in future U.S. territorial acquisitions.The annexation also laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1900 and its statehood in 1959, though not without continued controversy and calls for sovereignty. Legally, the Newlands Resolution exemplified the flexibility—and limits—of congressional authority in foreign affairs and territorial governance. It also introduced enduring questions about consent, self-determination, and the legitimacy of U.S. expansionism under constitutional law.This event highlights how domestic legal processes were used to justify international actions, revealing tensions between democratic ideals and imperial ambitions.A rare trial is beginning in Boston over a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of deporting international students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian activism. The case was brought by academic groups including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. It centers on actions taken after Trump signed executive orders targeting non-citizens with so-called "hateful ideology" and promising to fight antisemitism. Plaintiffs allege that these directives led the State and Homeland Security Departments to revoke visas and detain students like Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, both of whom were targeted after expressing pro-Palestinian views.Unlike most Trump-era immigration cases, this one is proceeding to a full trial rather than being decided early by a judge. U.S. District Judge William Young emphasized that a trial is the best path to uncover the truth. Plaintiffs argue the policy violates the First Amendment, accusing the administration of suppressing political dissent on college campuses. The administration denies a deportation policy exists, claiming decisions are made based on security concerns, not ideology. Homeland Security officials insist the U.S. won't tolerate advocacy that they perceive as violent or anti-American.The trial outcome could shape how immigration authorities interpret and apply free speech protections to non-citizens in academic settings. It's only the second Trump-era policy case to reach trial under Judge Young, who has publicly criticized the judiciary for avoiding fact-finding through trials.Rare trial to begin in challenge to Trump-backed deportations of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersApple has formally appealed a €500 million ($587 million) fine imposed by the European Commission for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission found that Apple restricted app developers from directing users to more affordable options outside its App Store, which regulators said limited competition and consumer choice. Apple filed its lawsuit at Europe's second-highest court on the last day allowed for appeal, arguing that the fine is excessive and that the EU is overreaching by trying to dictate how it operates its App Store.The company claims it altered its policies to comply with the DMA and to avoid further daily fines, which could amount to €50 million per day. Apple also contends that the Commission's demands are both confusing for developers and harmful to users. Despite the changes, EU regulators are still reviewing the company's new terms and have solicited feedback from app developers before deciding if additional enforcement is needed.The case is part of broader efforts by the EU to rein in the influence of major tech companies and ensure fair digital market practices under the newly implemented DMA.Apple takes fight against $587 million EU antitrust fine to court | ReutersMaryland Legal Aid (MDLA), a critical legal support system for low-income individuals, especially women and domestic violence survivors, is facing a potential funding crisis due to the Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal. The proposal includes $21 million to close out the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to 130 nonprofit legal aid programs across the country, including MDLA. This move would eliminate a key source of support for clients like a Moroccan immigrant mother in Baltimore, who received urgent legal help from MDLA while still hospitalized from domestic abuse.LSC-funded services assist people earning at or below 125% of the federal poverty line, a group that includes a significant portion of Baltimore residents, where one in five people live in poverty. MDLA, the largest legal aid provider in the state, operates 12 offices and assists hundreds of clients each week with issues like eviction defense, expungement, and protection from abuse. Despite receiving only 14% of its funding from LSC, losing this support would result in fewer clients being served at a time when demand is growing.Staff at MDLA describe their work as essential, often likening their intake offices to emergency rooms. Without legal aid, tenants and abuse victims often face court alone, without understanding their rights. Advocates say that legal aid services prevent homelessness, violence, and broader social harm. While similar efforts to cut LSC funding have failed in the past, the current budget process will determine if the latest proposal gains traction.Legal Aid That Helped Abuse Victim Threatened with Trump Cuts This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

MIDDLE EAST. Updates from regional conflicts: The status of a new Gaza cease-fire proposal remains unclear this morning ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. Reports say the proposal, which Israel has accepted, includes plans for a 60-day cease-fire, the exchange of Hamas-held hostages for jailed Palestinians, increased flow of aid into Gaza, and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to a buffer zone along Gaza's borders. Israeli forces and Yemen-based Houthi rebels exchanged airstrikes early today following an attack on a Liberian-flagged ship in the Red Sea yesterday that is thought to have been carried out by the rebel group. In a video address yesterday, Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said the militant group would not disarm until Israel withdraws from all of southern Lebanon and halts airstrikes on Hezbollah targets. UKRAINE. Today is day 1229 of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here is your update: Hundreds of flights were disrupted at major Russian airports over the weekend, including those in Moscow and St. Petersburg, amidst Ukrainian drone strikes targeting multiple Russian regions. TEXAS. Amidst threats of further heavy rainfall, authorities in Texas say at least 82 people have died in flooding that struck central Texas along the Guadalupe River early Friday morning. Reports say the affected area received 12-14 inches of rain in the space of just hours late Thursday and early Friday, causing the river to rise 26 feet in just 45 minutes. Dozens of people, including at least 10 girls from an area summer camp, remain missing as search and rescue efforts continue. U.S. PROTESTS. A federal trial begins today in a case filed by several university associations that are challenging what they say is a Trump administration policy of arresting and deporting foreign university faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. Plaintiffs say the government policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. U.S. SPENDING AND TAX BILL. The House of Representatives on Thursday passed, and President Donald Trump signed into law Friday, the Trump-backed, so-called "one big, beautiful bill" of spending and tax measures that includes, among other things, tax breaks, spending cuts, a rollback of solar energy tax credits, and new money for national defense and immigration enforcement. In its latest analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the measure will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit and result in about 11.8 million more Americans becoming uninsured over the next 10 years. U.S. POLITICS. Amidst ongoing tensions with President Donald Trump over the passage of his sweeping tax and spending bill, former Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk has announced the formation of a new "America Party" political movement. BRICS. At the conclusion of a two-day summit, member nations of the BRICS coalition - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates - condemned global tariff increases and the recent attacks on Iran. While the BRICS statement did not specifically mention him, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media late last night that any country that aligns itself with what he termed "the Anti-American policies of BRICS" would face an added 10% tariff. PAKISTAN. National emergency officials say at least 72 people have died, and more than 130 have been injured, in 10 days of heavy monsoon rains and flash floods across Pakistan. GREECE. Mandatory work breaks from midday to 5pm have been imposed today for outdoor workers in parts of Greece where temperatures are expected to reach as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit (or 40 degrees Celsius). E.U. AND CHINA. China imposed new trade restrictions on European...

It's time to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the Marriage Equality Act! We invited back Tammy and Kim Franklin, two of original plaintiffs in the Obergefell vs. Hodges to talk about their experiences and how their lives have changed.  The Franklins were one of six couples that brought this case to the Supreme Court in 2015. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriages and that same sex marriages will be recognized nationwide.  In this bonus episode, Tammy and Kim share their experiences and growing concerns in this current political climate.  They walk us through how their lives have changed and how much work there still needs to be done. Show Notes: www.hotflashescooltopics.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HotFlashesCoolTopics Find Us Here! Website I [http://hotflashescooltopics.com/] Mail I [hotflashescooltopics@gmail.com] Instagram I [https://www.instagram.com/hotflashesandcooltopics/] Facebook : [www.facebook.com/hotflashescooltopics] YouTube I [https://www.youtube.com/@HotFlashesCoolTopics] Pinterest I [https://www.pinterest.com/hcooltopics/] Want to Leave a Review for Hot Flashes and Cool Topics? Here's How: For Apple Podcasts on an iPhone or iOS device: Open the Apple Podcast App on your device. Click on the “search” icon Type into the search bar “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” and click on the show Towards the bottom, look for “Ratings and Reviews” Click on “Write a Review” and leave us your thoughts and comments! For Apple Podcasts on a computer: On the Apple Podcasts website, go to the search bar and type “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” After clicking on the show, find the “Listen on Apple Podcasts” button and click on it The “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” podcast should open on the Apple Podcasts application Keep scrolling on the page until you see “Ratings and Reviews” Click on “See All” If you want to give us a five-star rating, hover over the empty stars! If you want to leave your thoughts and comments, click on “Write a Review”!

Now that the pandemic is fading from our memories, courts are showing a renewed willingness to order plaintiffs to appear in person for their depositions, even when a plaintiff has relocated to distant places and will incur considerable expense and inconvenience if forced to travel. In this episode, Jim Garrity dissects a brand-new court ruling on the topic, explains in detail why the plaintiff in that case failed to win a protective order requiring her to travel 2,000 miles back to the litigation forum. Then he offers crucial tactical advices for both plaintiffs and defendants when fighting this battle. SHOW NOTESOrder Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc., Case No. 23-0431-KD-B, 2025 WL 1710041 (S.D. Ala. June 18, 2025) (court refused to issue protective order where plaintiff, who moved cross-country since filing her lawsuit, claimed financial and medical hardships but failed to meet her burden of a particularized showing of harm to justify relief)

In this episode (the last of Season Two), Dr. Pensa  sits down to speak with a plaintiff's attorney. However, her guest, Chad Englehardt, is not your average plaintiff's attorney. Chad is a highly lauded attorney, law professor, and advocate of Rick Boothman's Michigan Model (for more on that, listen to Episode 13 of Season Two.)  We talk extensively about CRP (Communication - Resolution) programs, patient safety, and the dysfunction of our current legal system, which re-traumatizes patients and clinicians alike. If the first rule of medicine is 'First, do no harm,' then he feels the second rule in medicine, and the first in law, should be: "Do no further harm." We also talk a bit about third party investors and litigation funding (which we have not yet covered in the podcast, but is of great importance...we'll revisit it!) During the course of our conversation, Mr. Englehardt mentions two books: "Win - Win" by Rebecca Sposita, Esq "Gain Without Pain" by Greg Hammer, MD You can reach Chad via email at chad@cmtjustice.com.  We'll be back in a few months with the start of Season Three!

Defeating the Darkness: Survivor Stories and a Prosecutor's Playbook to Reclaim Power and Find Justice in the Fight Against Sexual Assault in Our Schools and Institutions IF YOU'RE A SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR, you may have tried to pick up the pieces and go on with your life. Whether or not your abuser was punished for their actions, the mental, physical, and emotional toll continues, affecting your relationships and health. And if the abuse happened while you were in a school, in your place of employment, or in an organization that was supposed to keep you safe, the questions linger.How could they have let that happen to me?Why didn't they see?How can I finally have peace with this?In Defeating the Darkness — Hope, Healing, and Justice: Preventing Sexual Assault in Our Schools and Institutions, Heather Brown shows you how to take back your power and make things right. You'll hear the stories of others like you who went from being victims to becoming heroes who fought for justice and helped protect others from enduring similar abuse.Want to be a guest on Book 101 Review? Send Daniel Lucas a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/17372807971394464fea5bae3 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Plaintiff attorney and mediator Jill Bollwerk offers practical tips and insights that can help you be more successful in your next mediation.

Plaintiff attorney and mediator Jill Bollwerk offers practical tips and insights that can help you be more successful in your next mediation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoL

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoL

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this episode, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda and trial attorney Max Massey share practical strategies that help attorneys deliver stronger results both in court and behind the scenes. Learn how telling your client's story effectively, narrowing your practice focus, and using impactful visuals can lead to better outcomes and deeper client trust.In This Episode, You'll Learn:How Telling Your Client's Story Improves Trial Success: Create emotional connection with jurors, adjusters, and judges by framing your case around your client's lived experience.Why Niching Down Can Build Authority and Grow Referrals: Fewer competitors and deeper expertise means more cases—and better ones.Translating Complex Facts Into Human Impact: Learn how to use expert insights and simple language to make technical details resonate.The Value of Joining TTLA: Access education, resources, and legislative advocacy to support your work as a trial lawyer in Texas.What Tort Reform Really Means for Your Clients: Understand the legal and financial realities affecting your clients' ability to recover full compensation.How “Day in the Life” Videos Help Maximize Settlements: Use visual storytelling to show the real impact of your client's injuries.Working with Translators and Building Trust Across Language Barriers: Preserve clarity, compassion, and connection with every client—no matter what language they speak.

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dan and Pat are joined by Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute regarding his recent oral argument before the Seventh Circuit.

The Combs Defendants have notified the Court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dawn Richard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Richard's Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against more than two dozen defendants, alleging a wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy. However, the Combs Defendants argue that the claims are baseless, stating that even if the alleged facts were true (which they deny), they do not substantiate the claims made in the Complaint.The Defendants further contend that the claims are insufficiently pled, lack legal merit, and are barred due to being untimely by several years. Additionally, they highlight that contractual releases signed by the Plaintiff preclude these claims. The Defendants characterize the Complaint as an attempt to sensationalize what they describe as a straightforward commercial dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.121.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?We discuss:Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump's sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President's authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Thabo Shole-Mashao, standing in for Clement Manyathela, speaks to Advocate Justin Erasmus, Chair of the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla), Mbekezeli Benjamin, Research and Advocacy Officer at Judges Matter, and McIntosh Polela, Spokesperson for the Road Accident Fund, about the Gauteng High Court's new mediation directive and its implications for civil cases. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live – The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) on 702 https://www.primediaplus.com/station/702 Find all the catch-up podcasts here https://www.primediaplus.com/702/the-clement-manyathela-show/audio-podcasts/the-clement-manyathela-show/ Subscribe to the 702 daily and weekly newsletters https://www.primediaplus.com/competitions/newsletter-subscription/  Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702   702 on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702  702 on Instagram: www.instagram.com/talkradio702  702 on X: www.x.com/Radio702  702 on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@radio702  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda and trial attorney Max Massey sit down for an honest conversation about the evolving realities of building a legal career and a sustainable law practice. From early job struggles to case strategy and managing the pressure of high-stakes litigation, Jack and Max trade stories, lessons, and the systems that help them keep improving. Whether you're managing your first caseload or leading a growing firm, this episode offers raw insights into the habits and mindsets that drive long-term success in personal injury law.Topics Covered:    Time Management & Work-Life Balance    Early Career Struggles & Career Growth    Diversification vs. Specialization    Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers Demands    Case Management Systems & Checklists    Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery Sources    Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkKey TakeawaysTime Management & Work-Life BalanceJack shares how segmenting time between work, family, and personal health helped him move from late-night burnout to better productivity. The conversation touches on prioritizing outcomes over hours and having the right support system.Early Career Struggles & Career GrowthMax opens up about his early challenges breaking into the field, including juggling multiple roles at a small firm. His journey underscores the importance of persistence, humility, and saying “yes” to opportunity.Diversification vs. SpecializationJack and Max reflect on experimenting with different practice areas early on — and how focusing on personal injury law brought clarity, consistency, and better results for clients.Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers DemandsThey break down the role of Stowers demands, how to verify information from adjusters, and why being proactive with documentation can make or break a claim.Case Management Systems & ChecklistsJack discusses treating every case like it's going to trial — and how detailed checklists, playbooks, and case reviews help create consistent outcomes.Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery SourcesThe conversation includes insights on evaluating damages, controlling litigation costs, and navigating post-judgment collection when assets are limited.Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkJack emphasizes the importance of mentorship, communities like TTLA, and staying curious — while still developing your own systems and principles over time.

Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case.

Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A multi-bill effort led by attorney lawmakers in the Florida House of Representatives would roll-back many property insurance litigation reforms passed in the 2022-2023 legislative session.  Those reforms are reminiscent of the Workers' Compensation insurance reforms passed in the early 2000's that today has Florida boasting one of the lowest workers' comp rates in the country. Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller talks with Jon Shebel, former President & CEO of Associated Industries of Florida who led the workers' comp efforts.  Shebel draws direct comparisons between both reform efforts, argues that the proposed bills this session don't help consumers, and urges the legislature to listen to the data, as it did with workers' comp, that shows property insurance reforms are working to reduce homeowners insurance rates. Show Notes  (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/) Jon Shebel recounts his role in Florida's 2003-2005 workers' compensation reforms, which capped attorney fees and streamlined claims, reducing rates from the highest to among the lowest in the U.S.  Florida's rates have dropped for the eighth consecutive year.“The biggest issue was litigation,” explained Shebel, on the reason for high workers' comp insurance rates.  “Plaintiff attorneys had free rein to convince injured workers to sue their employers, often leading to drawn-out cases that weren't necessarily in the workers' best interest.  There were cases where legal fees ended up costing more than the actual medical treatment and benefits for the injured worker.”Shebel said that very same incentive to sue contributed to Florida having the highest property insurance rates in the country between 2017 and 2023.  By 2021, Florida had 8% of all homeowners' claims in the U.S., yet 76% of all homeowners' claims lawsuits, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.   Likewise, a 2021 report titled Florida's P&C Insurance Market is Spiraling Toward Collapse revealed that “Of the $15 billion spent on litigated claims since 2015, only 8% was paid to policyholders.  Plaintiff attorneys got 71% with the remaining 21% spent by insurance companies on defense attorneys.” Shebel said Florida's property insurance reforms took a lesson from its workers' compensation insurance reforms 20 years earlier.“Our strategy in workers' comp was to address the root cause, plaintiff attorney involvement.  The main provisions included capping attorney fees, streamlining the claims process, and implementing stricter guidelines to prevent unnecessary lawsuits.  This not only reduced legal costs but also ensured that injured workers got the benefits they needed faster, without the delays that litigation often caused,” Shebel said.  All....  (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/) 

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 223 features Charles Porges, Co-Founder and CEO of Novo, a legal tech company revolutionizing how plaintiff attorneys write medical chronologies and demands with artificial intelligence.  Novo's technology automates this process, empowering attorneys to draft high-quality documents in minutes — compared to days if done conventionally — ultimately saving valuable time and resources. Novo's AI-powered platform analyses and parses client documents to extract the most relevant information, reducing the burden of administrative tasks and freeing up attorneys to focus on strategic work. Novo is the personal injury settlement engine, reshaping the legal industry. 

It's been a week filled with breaking news and, as usual, investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell are on it, starting with the arrest of Grant Solomon's mother. Grant was 18 years old when he was killed outside of Nashville under mysterious circumstances (and with his father, former news anchor Aaron Solomon, nearby). In the years since his death, Grant's mother has fought for law enforcement to take another look at her son's case and sought for protection for her daughter, who accused Aaron of sexual abuse.  This past Friday, Angie Solomon was arrested and charged with attempting to hire a hitman to kill Aaron. Mandy and Liz break down what happened and why the accusations seem … off.  Plus, reporter Beth Braden learns that two new witnesses to Grant's death came forward last spring and what they had to say is interesting.  Also on the show, Jane Doe No. 1 stands up to Myrtle Beach Pastor John-Paul Miller's legal bullying.  Plus a shocking (overlooked?) piece of evidence in the Scott Spivey case … no really, it's wild.  Premium members get updates on Russell Laffitte's plea deal, Alex Murdaugh's latest attempts to manipulate dummies and what's up with Cory Fleming's appeal?  Let's dive in...

"I give trial lawyers a menu of options," Andrew Gould explains to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders about his strategic approach as head of appellate at plaintiffs' firm Arnold & Itkin. After building their appellate practice from scratch following his years as a federal prosecutor, Andrew shares battle-tested techniques for navigating the trial lawyer relationship. His "eyes-wide-open" philosophy ensures transparent communication about strategic decisions and potential appellate consequences. When asked about electoral changes affecting appellate courts, Andrew replies: "What matters to me as an appellate lawyer are the law and the facts, and that's all it should be."Connect and Learn More☑️ Andrew Gould | LinkedIn☑️ Arnold & Itkin on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by

In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda answers listener-submitted questions about building a law firm that runs on systems—not chaos.If you're constantly putting out fires, working long hours, and struggling to grow your firm, Jack offers practical strategies to bring clarity, structure, and intentional leadership to your practice. He walks through his weekly planning system, explains how to create an “ideal week,” and shares tools for better delegation and follow-up.Whether you're a solo attorney or managing a growing team, this episode offers real-world advice to help you take back control of your time and build a scalable firm.In This Episode:    How systems create efficiency, scalability, and work-life balance    Jack's weekly planning and review process    Building an “ideal week” for energy and productivity    Strategies for delegation and consistent follow-up    The value of weekly reflection for continuous improvementContact Jack Zinda:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224

OA1149 - Even as most of the Biglaw establishment falls to Trump's whims, lawyers from smaller firms are stepping up to do the most necessary work  on the most important issues of our times. We're here to tell you a little more about some of them! But first: The House passes the “No Rogue Rulings Act” and we rip into some fascist nonsense from MAGA legal “thinker” Mike Davis defending the President's absolute  right to call anyone a terrorist and send them to hell without a hearing. Also: DHS's “evidence”(?) in support of Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation,  SCOTUS ‘s surprise mid-episode ruling ordering the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran gulag, and more on the truly inspirational lawyers who are aggressively pushing these fights forward. In today's footnote: can you sue ChatGPT for “hallucinating” terrible stories about you? One heavily-armed Georgia talk show host is gunning to find out. The “No Rogue Rulings Act”  (HR 1526)  Amicus brief filed in Korematsu Center et al in Perkins Coie v. DOJ (4/9/25) DHS “evidence” filed in Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation proceedings (4/10/25) U.S. Supreme Court's order in Noem v. Abrego Garcia (04/10/2025) Plaintiff's complaint in Walters v OpenAI   “SCOTUS must stop leftist judges' lawless sabotage of Trump agenda | Fox News, Mike Davis (3/31/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

This episode examines a lawsuit against Sean Combs, Emilio Estefan, and others by Manzaro Joseph, alleging human trafficking and severe abuse. #Diddy #seancombs #courtneyburgess #exposedpodcastfiles #podcast #exposed #seancombs #rap #cassie  Timestamps 02:49 Allegations and Key Defendants06:05 The Plaintiff's Experience09:56 The Freak-Off Event16:52 Charges against “Diddy”21:51 New Developments in the Case25:55 Dismissals and Legal ChallengesLegal Note: This Case has not been criminally decided and all persons discussed in this podcast are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The criminal or civil charges expressed in this podcast are taken from public record and not the direct opinions of the host or producers of this podcast.   For collaborations, promotions, or appearances email Jim at:  https://www.exposedpodcastfiles@gmail.com  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

A new constitutional crisis has broken out with the Trump Administration refusing to comply, again, with a Federal judge's orders. In a new filing, The Trump Administration just confessed to violating a Court Order to stop Trump's unconstitutional exercise of war powers to deport hundreds of people to El Salvador and Honduras in violation of a DC Chief Judge's order blocking that action, and the ACLU representing Plaintiffs have filed this morning their Notice to the Court outlining that the ways in which Trump has violated the Court's order, and demanding that the Court intervene and take action. Michael Popok breaks down what has happened in the last 48 hours, and what will happen next in court. To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hear that gurgling sound? That's the sound of the Trump DOJ, outmanned, outgunned, and underfunded courtesy of Elon Musk, losing regularly under the strain of 95 cases in the first 35 days of the Administration. Michael Popok reports on the DOJ telling an unsympathetic federal judge that they just couldn't get to his case because they don't have enough staff and what that means for Plaintiff's groups suing the Trump Administration at a record pace. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Legal AF's Michael Popok provides urgent live briefing on late breaking events. Tonight, Popok examines MSNBC's firing of all of its diverse anchors, including Katie Phang and Joy Reid, to bend the knee to Trump; Federal Courts holding the line against Trump and Musk as an open MAGA rebellion has broken out internally against Musk; the hallowing out of American Values by Trump in his policies and laws, as Trump breaks the connection and breaches the social contract between US citizens and their government; an overview of the 92 cases and 34 injunctions and restraining orders against the Trump Administration as Plaintiffs groups like Attorneys General, public interest groups, and democratic lawyers, win at a 99% rate so far in courts, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Rubbish: For 35% off your order, head to https://RubbishHome.com and use code LEGALAF VIIA: Try VIIA Hemp! https://viia.co/legalaf and use code LEGALAF! Naked Wines: Join the Naked Wines community and head to https://NakedWines.com/legalaf for 6 bottles of wine for JUST $39.99 with shipping included MD Hearing: To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices